Madras High Court
Sakthi Saravanan vs State Of Tamilnadu on 27 November, 2025
2025:MHC:2713
Crl.A.No.481 of 2022
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 07.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
Crl.A.No.481 of 2022
Sakthi Saravanan,
S/o.Gopalakrishnan,
277/4, Kalyan Nagar,
Perambalur. ... Appellant / Sole Accused
versus
State of Tamilnadu,
Represented by Inspector of Police,
Perambalur Police Station,
Perambalur District. ... Respondent/Complainant
(Crime No.313 of 2018)
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the
judgment dated 28.04.2022 in S.C.No.18 of 2019 on the file of the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Perambalur.
For Appellant : Mr.Babu Rangasamy
for M/s.Babu Rangasamy Associates
1/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
Crl.A.No.481 of 2022
For Respondent : Mr.J.Subbiah
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
28.04.2022 in S.C.No.18 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Perambalur.
2. The appellant, an ex-serviceman, was convicted and sentenced
by the trial court as detailed below:-
Penal Provisions Sentence of Fine Amount
Imprisonment
279 of IPC 6 Months Rigorous Rs.1,000/- in default to
Imprisonment undergo 1 month simple
imprisonment
337 of IPC 6 Months Rigorous Rs.500/- each in default
Imprisonment each to undergo 1 month
(3 counts) simple imprisonment
each
Sentences shall run concurrently
304-A of IPC 2 Years Rigorous Rs.5,000/- each in
Imprisonment each default to undergo 6
(9 counts) (total 18 months simple
Years) imprisonment each
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
Sentence shall run consecutively
3. According to the prosecution, the appellant, on attaining
superannuation from the Military service, was working as a security officer
in the Ramco Cement Factory at Ariyalur. On 10.05.2018 after his duty, he
had taken his Hyundai Verna car bearing Registration No.TN46 S 4594 to
Trichy junction, where he consumed alcohol along with his friends and
thereafter, he proceeded to his native. At 00.10 hours on 11.05.2018, while
he was driving his car in a rash and negligent manner in the Trichy-Chennai
National Highway, about 200 metres in the north of Perambalur four-road
overbridge, opposite to one Om Sakthi Workshop, the appellant's car had hit
the centre median.
4. Due to the rash speed, the car, after hitting the median, toppled
and crossed the median and fell on a Chevrolet Tavera car bearing
Registration No.TN21 AP 3396, which was coming from the opposite
direction. Due to the impact of the accident and damage suffered, 9 persons
who were travelling in the Chevrolet Tavera car, including children, women
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
and the owner of the car, had died on the spot and the driver also thereafter
died in the hospital. A Toyota Etios car bearing Registration No.PY01 CD
6474, which came behind the Chevrolet Tavera car also hit the vehicle, in
which the owner of the Etios car/PW1 and her two daughters, sustained
injuries.
5. Based on the complaint/Ex.P1 given by PW1, FIR/Ex.P24 was
registered by the Inspector of Police/PW25 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.
PW25 arrested the accused. The Investigating Officer/PW29, on completing
the investigation, filed the final report.
6. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Perambalur, took up the
case, issued summons to the accused and complied with Section 207 of
Cr.P.C. Since the offences are triable by the court of session, the magistrate
committed the case to the Principal District Court under Section 209 of
Cr.P.C. On committal, the trial court framed the charges under Sections 279,
337 (3 counts) and 304-A (9 counts) IPC and Section 185 of the Motor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
Vehicles Act, 1988. When questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and
stood trial.
7. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW29 and marked exhibits
Ex.P1 to Ex.P46. On completion of the prosecution evidence, when the
accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. based on the
incriminating materials, he denied the same. However, the accused neither
examined any witnesses nor produced any documents. The trial court, on
appraising the evidences and arguments, convicted the appellant under
Sections 279, 337 (3 counts) and 304-A (9 counts) IPC and imposed the
sentence as stated supra. However, acquitted the appellant under Section
185 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
8. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed, the accused
has preferred the above appeal.
9. Mr.Babu Rangasamy, learned counsel appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
appellant made the following submissions:-
i. There is absolutely no evidence available on record to prove
that the appellant drove the car in a rash and negligent manner,
which resulted in the accident.
ii. There is no eye-witness except PW4, who had also turned
hostile. The presence of PW4 in the workshop at 12.10 am was
highly improbable and even his statement is that only on
hearing the sound he went to the accident spot.
iii. The evidence of PW11/Assistant Manager of Toll Plaza,
coupled with Ex.P6, establish that the appellant drove the car
only at a moderate speed.
iv. The prosecution sought to project the case as though it is drunk
and drive but the same was falsified by the blood analysis
forensic report.
v. The failure to examine the Road Transport Officer/RTO of
Perambalur, who issued the special report/Ex.P43, by
conducting a detailed investigation is fatal to the case of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
prosecution.
vi. As per the evidence of PW13/Motor Vehicles Inspector who
had issued the inspection report/Ex.P9, the steering system was
found damaged. PW13 had admitted that if there is a steering
jam, then the vehicle cannot be operated.
vii.As per PW13, there was only 66% brake system in operation in
the Etios vehicle and further, the driver of the Tavera vehicle
did not possess the driving licence and therefore, the appellant
was not the cause for the accident.
viii.When the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt, the trial court had convicted the appellant
merely on presumptions and assumptions.
ix. Except for a suggestion of PW13 to the effect that if the
steering has not been hold firmly, there is a possibility for the
accident to occur by hitting the median, there is no other
materials.
x. The trial court, only being swayed by the fact that 9 persons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
having been died in the accident, had convicted the appellant
on presumptions and imposed the maximum punishment,
which was also directed to run consecutively.
xi. The learned counsel in support of his contentions relied on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
K.M.Appachu Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2024 SCC
Online SC 4052 and Sanjay Colaro Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1147 for the proposition that
the sentence could be modified by imposing adequate
compensation.
10. Mr.J.Subbiah, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
appearing for the respondent/State contended that, even though PW4 has
turned hostile, the part of the evidence which supports the prosecution could
be relied upon. PW1/owner of the Etios car, PW2 and PW3, who were in the
car that got involved in the accident, have been examined and the accident
caused by the appellant has been proved. The evidence of PW8, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, 27 and 28, who have issued the postmortem certificates/Ex.P10 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
Ex.P17, 19, 20, 22, 25 and 33, clearly establish the cause of death of all 9
persons in the car due to the accident. From the evidence of PW13 and
inspection report/Ex.P9, it has been proved that there was no mechanical
failure/defect in the car, the tyre was intact and the accident resulted only
due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by the appellant.
11. He further submitted that the appellant, who also got injured in
the accident, was treated by PW26 and he has issued the accident
register/Ex.P29. The rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the
appellant having been proved, which resulted in the death of 9 persons and
also the injury of 3 persons, the trial court had rightly convicted the
appellant and imposed the sentence, which is in tune with the evidence and
the legal provisions.
12. Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available
on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
13. The appellant was driving his Hyundai Verna car that was
proceeding in the Trichy to Chennai National Highway. At 12.10 am on
11.05.2018, when the car was near Perambalur four-road overbridge, the car
hit the centre median, toppled and fell on the Chevrolet Tavera car, which
was coming in the opposite direction. A Toyota Etios car which was coming
behind the Tavera car also hit the vehicle. In the impact of the accident 9
passengers in the Tavera car died and 3 passengers in the Etios car suffered
injuries.
14. The appellant as such has been charged for offences under
Sections 279, 337 (3 counts) and 304-A (9 counts) of IPC. For easy
reference, the provisions are extracted as under:-
“279. Rash driving or riding on a public way. — Whoever drives any
vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to
endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other
person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with both.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others. —
Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or
negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred
rupees, or with both.
304A. Causing death by negligence. — Whoever causes the death of any
person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable
homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
15. Though when a case is dealt with under the above provisions, it
is seen as to whether the driver of the vehicle drove the car in a rash and
negligent manner, the close look of these provisions would show that it is
not required for both the ingredients, “rash” and “negligent” to be present
for the offence to get attracted. The use of the word “or” instead of “and”
signifies that the words in the provision is to be read disjunctively. As per
the above provisions, it is sufficient to prove the guilt, even if one of the
element is present. Though mere driving in high speed may not be sufficient
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
for the offence to get attracted, it has to be established that the vehicle was
driven either in a rash manner or in a negligent manner, which resulted in
the accident.
16. There is a marked difference in either of the above two acts.
Though both the acts are coined together constituting the offence under
Section 304-A, prescribing the maximum punishment of up to 2 years,
however while considering the gravity of the offence for imposing sentence
the approach and consideration by the court may require different yardstick
depending on the fact and circumstances of each case. In rash act, the
person being conscious that the act may result or lead to any serious damage
or injury, he still ventures to do the same voluntarily unmindful of the
consequences. But in negligent act, the person only fail to take adequate
care which may result in some unforeseen consequences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
17. In the instant case, the testimony of the witnesses pertaining to
the accident is as under:-
i. As per PW1, when he was travelling with his two daughters for
a marriage and at around 12.10 am, a car came from the
opposite direction and colluded with the Tavera car, in which 8
people died on the spot and one person died in the hospital. In
the accident, PW1 and her daughters got minor injuries and
were treated as out patient. Only since the appellants car hit
somewhere, the vehicle could have crossed the median as the
vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. PW1
preferred complaint/Ex.P1.
ii. As per PW2/daughter of PW1, they were travelling by chatting
and she saw a car falling on another car which was going in
front of their vehicle. They heard the sound when the car fell
down and all the 3 vehicles got damaged in the accident.
iii. As per PW3/driver of PW1 (Etios car), a Tavera car was
proceeding in front at a distance of 20 feet. Only after the
vehicle met with the accident, he came to know that the
accident was caused by the car coming from the opposite
direction and then about the details of the offending car.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
iv. As per PW4/owner of the workshop, he came back to the shop
after having tea around 12.00 -12.30 am. Only on hearing the
sound of accident, he went and saw and as the situation was
bad he came back. PW4 was treated as hostile and cross
examined by prosecution.
v. PW5 to PW7 are the relatives who were not present at the time
of accident.
vi. PW9/Revenue Inspector is the mahazar witness for the
mahazar/Ex.P3 prepared by the Investigating Officer/PW29.
vii.As per PW12/Fire Officer, on intimation about the accident,
they reached the spot and sent the injured persons to the
hospital in an ambulance. A call was received at 00.20 hours
and they reached the accident place.
viii.As per PW8, PW14 to PW18, PW27 and PW28 Doctors, on
conducting postmortem, they have issued the postmortem
certificates/Ex.P10 to Ex.P17, Ex.P19, Ex.P20, Ex.P22, Ex.P25
and Ex.P33. The postmortem certificates reveals that the cause
of death was due to the injuries sustained by the deceased in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
the impact of the accident.
18. From the testimony of the above witnesses, the fact that the
accident occurred due to the appellant's car hitting the median, toppled and
crossed the median, fell on the Tavera car and further, the Etios car coming
behind also got involved in the accident, in which 9 persons died and 3
persons got injured has been established.
19. As per the charges framed, the appellant drove the car after
consuming alcohol in a rash and negligent manner. PW26/Doctor had
treated the appellant after being taken to the hospital from the accident spot.
The blood samples were collected and sent to the laboratory for analysis. As
per PW26, when he examined the appellant, there was a smell of alcohol.
Appellant was admitted as inpatient and the accident register is Ex.P.29. The
blood sample collected was sent to forensic laboratory, Trichy. A report was
received on 11.05.2018. PW26 issued Ex.P30 report and he opined that “the
appellant consumed alcohol but not under its influence”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
20. In the cross examination, PW26 admits that, as per the forensic
blood sample report received, there was no alcohol present. The perusal of
Ex.P30 reveals that PW26 has given the report and the forensic analysis
report received has not been filed before the court. In the absence of the
prosecution producing the forensic blood sample report of the appellant and
the admission of PW26 that there was no presence of alcohol in the report
received, the allegation that the appellant drove the car after consuming
alcohol, is not proved. As such the trial court had rightly disbelieved that the
appellant drunk and drove the vehicle.
21. Now the point to be considered is as to whether the appellant
drove the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner.
22. PW1/owner of Etios car, PW2/daughter of PW1 and
PW3/driver of PW1 (Etios car), who are eye witnesses present in the place
of occurrence, did not testify that the appellant drove the Verna car in a rash
or negligent manner. The testimony of PW1 to PW3 is only that they heard
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
the sound and saw the car falling on the another car travelling in front of
them and therefore it has not been established from their evidence that the
appellant drove the car either in a rash or in a negligent manner.
23. Further the possibility of PW4/owner of the workshop, being
present in the shop around 12.10 am is not probable, but however PW4 also
turned hostile. Even his statement, is only to the effect that on hearing the
sound, he went to the place and saw and therefore PW4 did not see the
appellant driving the car in a rash or in a negligent manner.
24. The prosecution has examined PW11/Assistant Manager of
Toll Plaza and marked Ex.P6. As per Ex.P6, the Verna car had crossed the
Toll Plaza at 11.25 pm and the accident had occurred at 12.10 am. The
distance between the Toll Plaza and the accident place and the time taken to
cover this distance, signifies that the car was driven only in a moderate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
speed. The Road Transport Officer/RTO had conducted an enquiry and
issued a special report/Ex.P43. Ex.P43 has been marked through the
Investigating Officer/PW29 and the prosecution did not choose to examine
the author of Ex.P43 for the reasons best known to them.
25. As per Ex.P43, it was found that the Verna car had crossed the
Toll Plaza near Samayapuram on 10.05.2018 at 11.25 pm in NH 45 and
caused this accident at 12.10 am on 11.05.2018. The car had travelled a
stretch of 39.6 kms within a time span of 45 minutes, which shows that the
average speed travelled is 52.8 kms per hour, which is a permissible
moderate speed to drive in the National Highway.
26. There is no other evidence to establish that the appellant drove
the car in a rash manner. In fact, from the evidence of PW11 coupled with
Ex.P6 and Ex.P43/special report of RTO, it is evident that the appellant had
drove the car in the National Highway only at a speed of around 50 kms per
hour, which is within the permissible limits. It cannot even be said that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
car was driven at a high speed, much less in a rash manner. When there is
absolutely no evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant
drove the car in a rash manner.
27. However to prove the negligence of the appellant, the
prosecution has examined PW13/Motor Vehicles Inspector. As per PW13,
he had inspected the Verna Car and issued inspection report/Ex.P9,
certifying that “there was no mechanical defect and there was no tyre
burst”. The tyre was found to be in a satisfactory condition. Ex.P9 only
reveals that due to the impact of the accident, the steering system got
damaged and several parts of the vehicle as listed in the report got damaged.
The damages found were only due to the accident. PW13, on the questions
put by the trial court, suggested that if the steering is not hold in a proper
manner, there is a possibility of the vehicle hitting the median.
28. Except the evidence of PW13, which suggests that there could
be possibility of the vehicle hitting the median if the steering is not hold
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
properly, there is no other materials to prove the charge of rash driving
against the appellant. The trial court, simply on presumption concluded that
the appellant could have stopped the vehicle after crossing the Toll Plaza
and thereafter might have driven the vehicle at a high speed of 120 kms per
hour and as a result of which, could have hit the median, toppled and
crossed the other side of the road which resulted in the accident.
29. When onus was on the prosecution to prove the charges beyond
reasonable doubt, the trial court had merely on assumptions and
presumptions, without the prosecution proving the charge of rash driving
had convicted the appellant, holding that he drove the car in a rash and
negligent manner that resulted in the accident. The trial court probably
might have been swayed by the fact that there had been 9 fatalities and 3
injuries. It is also to be noted that initially the prosecution sought to project
the case as though it was a case of drunk and drive, which was found
otherwise.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
30. When the car was driven only at a speed of 50 kms per hour, as
established from the evidence of PW11, Ex.P6 and Ex.P43, considering the
time of the accident in the wee hours at 12.10 am and also the age of the
appellant and he having undertook the long drive after his day long duties,
in all probabilities he could have slightly felt fatigue or fallen asleep, due to
which the tyre had hit the median that resulted in the accident.
31. The fact that there was no mechanical defect in the car is
established through the inspection report/Ex.P9 coupled with the testimony
of PW13 and further there was no tyre burst and the tyre was also found in a
satisfactory condition. When there was no mechanical failure/defect and the
appellant had also not driven the vehicle at a high speed or in a rash manner
as it is established, the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on
the part of the appellant for want of proper care in not holding the steering
properly either due to lethargic approach or having slept, resulting in the
right wheel hitting the median, as suggested by PW13. The manner in which
the accident occurred speaks for itself clearly establishing the negligence. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
the absence of any explanation from the appellant and from the evidence let
in, all the materials unerringly point towards the guilt and when there was
no other possibility for the accident except the negligence of the appellant,
in such circumstances, by invoking the doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur” the
fact of negligence can also to some extent be presumed.
32. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syad
Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 1980 (1) SCC 30, even though
the doctrine res ipsa loquitur is to be applied in civil cases, it can be an aid
in the evaluation of evidence and to the limited extent the inference of fact
is permissible in the criminal case for inferring negligence, from the chain
of other facts proved in the case based on evidences. Further the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and
another, reported in 2005 (6) SCC 1, held that the doctrine cannot be
applied for determining liability for negligence in criminal law but may if at
all can have limited application in trial on a charge of criminal negligence.
Again in the case of Ravi Kapur Vs State of Rajasthan, reported in 2012
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
(9) SCC 284, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the doctrine of ‘res ipsa
loquitur’ is also applicable in criminal cases of accident and further
observed that speed of vehicle is not always determinative, reckless and
negligent driving at slow speed is also possible.
33. As such in view of the facts and circumstances of the present
case, where evidence has been let in to establish the other circumstantial
facts constituting accident by the car driven by the appellant hitting the
median and rolled over to the other side and hit the other vehicle, directly
and instantly causing the death of many persons, in the absence of rash
driving and mechanical defect in the car or any explanation from the
appellant, the fact of negligence on the part of the appellant is inferred to
the limited extent of not holding the steering of the car properly, which led
to the accident.
34. The appellant, who is working as a Security Officer in the
Ramco Cement Factory at Ariyalur, after completing his duty had started
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
from Trichy to Chennai in the evening and was driving his Verna car at
12.10 am in the National Highway. The appellant, if he was tired or needed
rest, it was for him to park the vehicle and take appropriate rest. The
appellant cannot ignore fatigue and choose to drive the car in the wee hours
by risking not only himself but also risking the other road users. The
appellant negligently failed to take proper care and decided to drive the car,
as a result of which the vehicle hit the median, toppled and crossed the
median and fell on the another car coming from an opposite direction.
A family consisting of women and children, most of them died on the spot
due to the impact of the accident and there had been 9 casualties and further
with 3 injuries in the other car. It is to be noted that several accidents in the
recent days occur due to the drivers fatigue without adequate break,
endangering the lives of other road users.
35. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant himself, being a veteran served in the army and retired, is not able
to digest the fact that he has been a cause for the accident in which 9 lives
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
have been lost and he is suffering every day apart from the sentence he has
undergone. It is also to be noted that, despite the huge impact of the
accident in which the appellant's car had crossed the median and fallen on
the other side of the road into the Tavera car by killing 9 persons, but still
the appellant had miraculously survived and is convicted for the charges.
36. The trial court had convicted the appellant on all the charges
and imposed a sentence of two years on each count for offence under
Section 304-A of IPC (9 counts). The sentence is directed to run
consecutively and in effect, the appellant has to undergo incarceration for a
total period of 18 years.
37. On reappraising the evidences, even though there is absolutely
no materials to prove that the appellant drove the vehicle at a high speed or
in a rash manner, but still, in view of the above deliberations and
considering the fact that there has been negligence on the part of the
appellant in driving the car, which led to the car hitting the median and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
resulted in the death of 9 individuals and injured 3, this Court is not inclined
to disturb the decision of the trial Court in convicting the appellant.
38. Coming to the sentence imposed, it is apposite to consider the
following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of the offences
under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC,
i. In the case of Surendran Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police1, while
affirming the conviction, considering the fact that the accident
took place more than 26 years ago, the sentence was
substituted for offences under Sections 279 and 388 of IPC
from six months to that of fine.
ii. In the case of Muthupandi Vs. State through the Inspector of
Police2, wherein the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and caused the death of one person and six
cows, while confirming the conviction for offences under
(2021) 17 SCC 799
2024 INSC 950
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, considering the fact that 11 years
have elapsed since the incident occurred and the appellant had
been on bail throughout, the sentence of three months
imprisonment was set aside and ordered for payment of
Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the victim under Section
357(3) of Cr.P.C.
iii. In the case of George Vs. State of Kerala3 dated 03.09.2024,
considering the fact that the appellant had been in custody for
about 117 days, while confirming the conviction for offences
under Sections 304-A and 338 of IPC, the sentence was
modified from six months to that of the period already
undergone and also reduced the compensation from Rs.2.5
lakhs to Rs.50,000/-.
iv. In the case of K.M.Appachu Vs. State of Karnataka4, while
confirming the conviction for offence under Section 304-A of
IPC, the sentence was commuted from one year to that of
compensation of Rupees Five Lakhs to the legal heirs of the
deceased.
v. In the case of Sanjay Calaro Vs. State of Karnataka5, while
SLP (Criminal)No.11041 of 2024
2024 SCC Online SC 4052
2025 SCC Online SC 1147
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
confirming the conviction for offence under Section 304-A of
IPC, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act was extended to
the accused and the sentence of 6 months was set aside by
awarding a compensation of Rupees Ten Lakhs to the legal
heirs of the deceased.
vi. However in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Balwinder Singh6,
it is held that the courts cannot deal with the offences relating
to motor vehicle accidents by treating the nature of the offence
under Section 304-A of IPC as attracting the benevolent
provision of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
vii.In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi7, it has
been held that it cannot be said as a proposition of law that
whenever an accused offers acceptable compensation for
rehabilitation of a victim, regardless of the gravity of the crime
under Section 304-A IPC, there can be reduction of sentence.
Passion of mercy cannot be applied with the principle that
payment of compensation is a factor for reduction of sentence,
which would be only a misplaced sympathy.
(2012) 2 SCC 182
(2015) 5 SCC 182
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
viii.In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Dil Bahadur8, by referring
to various decisions and on considering the proposition laid
that the cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the
sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he
had committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of
the offence and the punishment should not be so lenient that it
shocks the conscience of the society, sentence of eight months
for offence under Section 304-A of IPC was imposed.
ix. In the case of James Vs. State of Karnataka9, considering the
rash and negligent act while confirming the conviction for
offence under Section 304-A IPC, the court declined to convert
the sentence of six months into fine.
39. From the cases referred above, it is clear that to reduce or
commute the sentence by awarding compensation for offence under Section
304-A, the Courts had considered the facts and circumstances of the
individual case. In Balwinder Singh’s case, it has been proved that the
driver drove the vehicle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner,
which resulted in the accident. In Saurabh Bakshi’s case, the accident
resulted due to the vehicle having been driven at a very high speed in a rash
(2023) 18 SCC 183
2024 INSC 1038
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
and negligent manner which resulted in the loss of life. In Dil Bahadur’s
case, the accused drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and overtook an
ambulance from the left side, resulting in the accident where the ambulance
turned turtle, resulting in the death. In the case of James, the court noted
that the vehicle was driven at a high speed that the other vehicle was
dragged to a long distance, where the rash and negligent driving was
established.
40. Therefore, in all the cases where the Hon’ble Supreme Court
had declined to interfere in the sentence, the rash driving of the vehicle had
been established and the manner in which the accident happened has been
taken note of. In the instant case, as discussed earlier, there is no material to
prove that the appellant drove the car in a rash manner or even in a high
speed but for his negligence.
41. The mitigating circumstances favouring the appellant are,
(a) Appellant retired ex-serviceman, drove the car at the
permissible moderate speed of 50 kms per hour in the National
Highway.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
(b) There is no iota of evidence to prove that the appellant drove
the car in a rash manner or even at a high speed.
(c) It is a negligent act and the appellant himself miraculously
escaped from the impact of the accident.
(d) The accident happened in the year 2018 and the appellant has
already undergone incarceration for a period of 4 months and
since then had all along remained on bail.
(e) The appellant is 64 years old, he is a first time offender and not
a case of drunk and drive.
42. The aggravating circumstances are,
(a) In the accident 9 persons including women and children died
and 3 persons got injured.
(b) There is huge social and financial impact on the families
leading to serious consequences.
(c) The negligent act of the appellant driving the vehicle in wee
hours at 12.10 am ignoring fatigue, resulting in a major
accident.
43. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as
detailed above, it is not a case where the appellant drove the vehicle at a
high speed in a rash manner, but only negligence on the part of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
appellant, who took the risk of long driving in the wee hours at 12.10 am
after attending his duties, which resulted in the accident.
44. Considering the fact that the appellant, being a retired
ex-serviceman, had already been suffering due to the impact of the accident
and also had been in incarceration for a total period of four months and
taking into the mitigating circumstances as stated above, in the considered
opinion of this Court, while sustaining the conviction, it would only be just
and proper to modify the sentence of imprisonment by awarding adequate
compensation to the injured and the legal heirs of the deceased. The learned
counsel for the appellant also on instructions submitted that the appellant is
prepared and ready to suitably compensate the victims.
45. Considering the mitigating circumstances, the sentence
imposed on the appellant by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Perambalur, in S.C.No.18 of 2019 dated 28.04.2022 for offences under
Sections 279, 337 (3 counts) and 304-A (9 counts) of IPC is modified to a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
period of four months for each of the offences and also for each count.
The sentence for each count and for each of the offences shall run
concurrently. The period already undergone shall be set off under section
428 of Cr.P.C. Since the appellant was in imprisonment for a total period of
4 months, the effect of the modified sentence would amount to the period
already undergone. The sentence of imprisonment is modified only on
condition that the appellant pays a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- [Rupees Two
Lakhs Only] each to the legal heirs of 9 deceased persons and
Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh Only] each to 3 injured persons. The
sentence of fine imposed by the trial court is confirmed. The compensation
is ordered under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.
46. The appellant is directed to deposit the compensation amount
for a total sum of Rs.21,00,000/- [Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Only] within
a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
before the trial court. On such deposit being made, the compensation shall
be distributed to the legal heirs of 9 deceased persons and 3 injured persons.
The District Legal Services Authority, Perambalur, shall take necessary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
steps to identify the legal heirs and intimate them and provide necessary
assistance for the disbursal of the compensation amounts to the eligible
legal heirs. In the event of failure to deposit the compensation amount
within the stipulated time as directed, the original sentence as ordered by the
trial court would automatically stand restored. It is made clear that this
compensation paid, would be in addition to the compensation if any
awarded in the accident claim.
47. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed.
27.11.2025
Speaking order
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
sri
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Perambalur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
2.The Inspector of Police,
State of Tamilnadu,
Perambalur Police Station,
Perambalur District.
3.The District Legal Services Authority,
Perambalur.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
sri
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
27.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
